Steven Sahiounie, journalist and political commentator
On July 14, Lebanon and Israel concluded the first day of direct negotiations in Rome under United States mediation, with both sides describing the discussions as constructive while remaining far apart on the key issues of Israeli military withdrawal, security arrangements, and the future of the border region.
A U.S. State Department official described the Rome meetings between American, Lebanese, and Israeli representatives as “productive” and conducted in a positive atmosphere.
The Lebanese presidency instructed its delegation to insist that Israeli forces begin withdrawing immediately from two designated pilot areas before addressing any additional issues. Beirut views the withdrawal as the essential first step toward implementing the broader agreement.
According to diplomatic sources familiar with the negotiations, the Lebanese Armed Forces are prepared to deploy into villages once Israeli troops withdraw. Lebanon intends to insist that implementation begins with the pilot areas before expanding the process to other occupied locations.
However, the two sides continue to differ fundamentally over the purpose of the negotiations. Diplomatic sources indicate that Israel seeks to use the process to establish a broader political understanding that could eventually lead toward normalization, while Lebanon maintains that discussions should remain limited to security arrangements and implementation of the ceasefire framework.
Before the Rome meetings began, a U.S. military delegation met with senior Lebanese Army commanders to discuss mechanisms for implementing a possible Israeli withdrawal from one of the designated pilot areas.
Analysts think American pressure on Israel to begin withdrawals would likely come only after the anticipated visit of the Lebanese president to Washington next week.
Although cross-border exchanges between Israel and Hezbollah have declined since June, Israeli forces continue conducting airstrikes and demolition operations in southern Lebanon.
Lebanon insists that Israeli withdrawal must precede discussions on other political or security issues.
Israel, however, argues that withdrawals should occur only after satisfactory security arrangements are established and after guarantees are provided that Hezbollah will not reestablish military positions near the border.
Israeli officials have stated that the Israel Defense Forces must verify that the designated areas are free of Hezbollah weapons and military infrastructure before any further redeployment. Lebanese negotiators have proposed that the United States military assume responsibility for conducting those inspections instead.
Axios reported that U.S. President Donald Trump urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a recent telephone conversation to begin redeploying Israeli forces from Syrian territory and to consider taking similar steps in Lebanon.
Trump warned that Israel’s continued military presence inside Syria risks increasing regional tensions and could trigger further escalation.
According to Axios, several senior Israeli officials support maintaining long-term control over occupied territories in both Lebanon and Syria, with some advocating the establishment of Israeli settlements in those areas.
Critics argue that Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon have evolved beyond targeting military infrastructure, becoming a systematic campaign that removes entire villages from effective existence, prevents displaced residents from returning, and fundamentally alters the demographic and geographic character of the region.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has previously stated that hundreds of thousands of Shiite residents would not return to southern Lebanon. Critics contend that such statements raise concerns under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Critics accuse the Lebanese government of adopting policies directed against Hezbollah while fueling political and sectarian tensions.
Among the government’s most controversial measures have been restrictions on Hezbollah’s activities, efforts to disarm the organization, and proposals criminalizing armed resistance. Opponents argue that these decisions lack broad national consensus and have deepened internal divisions at a time when Lebanon faces substantial external pressure.
On April 23, 2026, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam stated that Lebanon could not accept any agreement that failed to guarantee a complete Israeli withdrawal or that legitimized a permanent buffer zone preventing displaced residents from returning home.
However, following the signing of the current framework agreement, Salam defended the arrangement despite critics arguing that it contains no explicit timetable for complete Israeli withdrawal.
Opposition figures argue that Lebanon’s negotiating strategy relies excessively on anticipated American pressure on Israel, a strategy they believe is unlikely to succeed.
Lebanon continues to insist that Israeli withdrawal must occur before broader political or security discussions proceed. Israel maintains that lasting security guarantees and verification mechanisms must come first.
The success or failure of the Rome negotiations may ultimately depend on whether the United States is prepared to exert sufficient diplomatic pressure to bridge those fundamentally different positions. The unprovoked attack on Iran by the U.S. and Israel has proven that Netanyahu can bully Trump into a war, which has no exit strategy.
Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist.
